Someone once told me that if I give a speech with 100 people in an audience, I will give 100 different speeches. I'm not sure if the same is true when you write an article for publication but I suspect each of us will glean and react to different aspects of what we read based on our interpretations of the world. I agree with the conclusions that Diane Samdahl and Nancy Jekubovich reached in their article," A Critique of Constraints Theory: Comparative Analyses and Understandings," but I don't agree with all the assumptions they used in coming to those conclusions. I am appreciative of this opportunity to offer my thoughts about constraints research as a response to this paper. I also will present some opinions about how I feel existing constraints constructs are necessary, but not sufficient wholly, in helping us understand leisure behavior and meanings.

I agree with Samdahl and Jekubovich's conclusions that good applications for constraints theory exist. I also agree with the limitations of the theory and how it is most useful in understanding participation or nonparticipation in a specific activity. Further I believe that if we want to understand the meanings of leisure we must step outside any one limited perspective. Finally, I believe that doing this type of critique is essential if theory is to be advanced in our field. I would like to comment on some of the major and minor aspects of the evidence for the conclusions the authors gave and provide some discussion about the arguments they present.